RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02111 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served over six years with good behavior. It is unfair to characterize his entire period of service based upon an isolated incident unrelated to his military service and performance. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 Feb 88, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 12 May 94, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intention to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for commission of a serious offense—sexual perversion. The specific reasons for the discharge action were from 1 Mar 92 through 15 Apr 93, the applicant had a sexual relationship (sexual intercourse, oral sex and fondling) with a female under the age of 16. In the notification for discharge, the commander cited the following derogatory information: the applicant received five Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for conspiring to extort money, failure to notify supervisor when not in the local area during an exercise, failure to obey an order or regulation, failure to attend mobility and chemical warfare training, presenting a check with insufficient funds. He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and criminal record (CR) for having unlawful sexual contact with underage individuals. He was counseled on several occasions to cease all activities in relation to the victim. Despite all the warnings the applicant persisted in what he knew was illegal activity. After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action. On 2-3 Jun 94, a discharge board convened and ultimately recommended the applicant be furnished UOTHC discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). The legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended discharge with an UOTHC discharge without P&R. On 27 Jul 94, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an UOTHC discharge. On 28 Jul 94, the applicant was so discharged and was credited with six years, five months, and three days of total active service. On 17 Jan 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit C). In response, he states he served over six years with good behavior, to include two tours in the Persian Gulf. He was young, immature, reckless, and made mistakes. There were some personal reasons for his inexcusable behavior back then; upon returning from the Gulf, he learned his fiancée had been dating a friend of his. As for the extortion accusation, his car keys were taken without his permission and his car was damaged. He approached the individual who he believed was responsible but due to having no proof was subsequently reprimanded for attempted extortion. He believes this incident contributed to the negative characterization at his discharge hearing. His behavior was subject to an administrative proceeding and not a punitive one, even though it had a punitive effect. He was punished by the local authorities for his alleged crime, which never implicated the Air Force in any way. He did not violate anyone's right of refusal, or force anyone to do anything against their will. He treated the young woman like the adult she was pretending to be, and despite that old history, they are friends today. After discharge, he worked locally learning to repair appliances before returning to Pittsburgh and entering college for Information Technology (IT). While attending school, he worked in IT and sales. He made some mistakes when he was younger, but they were relatively isolated and small in scope, compared to the vast bulk of his time in the Air Force. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. We considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02111 in Executive Session on 27 Feb 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02111 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 14, w/atch. Exhibit D. Email Communique’, Applicant, dated 23 Jan 14. Panel Chair